On Outrage
By Jeff Scott
Over my career at Mercer, I have had a total of seven opinion columns published in the Cluster (four of them this year). I find it strange that, of all of those columns written, only two have received any kind of public response. I write about Hillary’s health care plan, which when passed will ruin the American health care system, and nobody outside the politically engaged cares. I write about the Iraq War, which many see as the defining issue of our generation, and nobody cares, despite the fact that I hold a perspective that no other major political thinker—left or right—holds.
Last year, I got black Mercerians angry with me for writing in a column that blacks tend to vote based on politicians’ positions on issues such as welfare and affirmative action. Those are the pandering issues of Democrats towards blacks, who then vote for Democrats to the tune of 90%. Mentioning these political realities landed me in hot water with blacks.
This year, I am causing outrage with my last column, advocating for the profiling of those of Middle Eastern descent in airports because of the current war against Islamic radicalism. Since that column was published, I have received hate mail and fan mail; one fellow student, in agreeing with me on profiling, even said that Islam and Christianity cannot coexist in the world. I disagree with that opinion; moderate Islam and Christianity are not incompatible. Islamic extremism, however, is incompatible with western civilization.
What do I mean by Islamic extremism (also known as Islamic fascism/militantism/fundamentalism)? I mean a group of Muslims who believe that the sole purpose of Muslims worldwide is to wage jihad, or holy war, against anybody who is not a Muslim. Under their ideology, there are three options for non-Muslims: convert to Islam, live as a dhimmi, or die. Dhimmis are not given basic rights, and are subject to heavy taxation at a whim. To these Islamic extremists, non-Muslims are kuffar, unclean infidels who are on the levels of pigs, and therefore not given any rights under the law.
The goal of these Islamic extremists is to enact Sharia, or Islamic law, around the world. Sharia gives no rights to women, minorities, homosexuals, or non-Muslims. An example of the extremists’ brand of Sharia in action came in Saudi Arabia, where schoolgirls were forced by religious police to re-enter a burning building from which they had escaped because they were not wearing their headscarves. These are the same people who have declared an open and active war against the United States and the West because we do not live under Islamic theocracies.
These Islamic extremists compose only about 10-15% of the worldwide Muslim population, according to various sources and polls. Extremists are most commonly of Middle Eastern descent, but are not necessarily violent in their extremism. This still means that a large majority of Middle Eastern Muslims pose no danger to Americans or anybody else. Unfortunately, these moderate Muslims have been unwilling or incapable of purging these extremists from their religion.
We should work with moderate Muslims to try to prevent jihadists from perpetuating their hateful agenda around the world. While it is unfortunate that moderates would be inconvenienced by profiling in airports and other places where security is a vital concern, it is even more unfortunate that their religion is dragged through the dirt for the actions of only 10-15% of Muslims. In the long term, I would much rather work with moderate Muslims around the world to purge extremists from the religion than have to profile against them. However, in the short term it is necessary to prevent more attacks against this nation by scrutinizing those who fit the description of the enemy who has declared war against the West.
Perhaps the problem is that race is the “fifth rail” of discussion at Mercer University, the one issue that you cannot touch. Perhaps the problem is the limited ability to completely convey and defend an opinion in the limited space available in a newspaper column. However, anytime I write about something in the Cluster, I cover it in more depth on my radio show. After all, this column is just a front for my radio show, which is both my true passion and my best outlet for opinion. Do any of the outraged bother to take the time to actually listen to my radio show and call in (I not only allow, I welcome phone calls—especially those that disagree with me)? No, they instead go to the editors of the Cluster and criticize them for allowing my column to be published and engage in personal attacks against me, calling me a racist, among other things. That is not political discourse. That is cowardice. To try to stifle opinion that you disagree with, rather than engaging that opinion in discourse, especially when there is a clear opportunity and avenue for said discourse, is not only cowardice, it is also antithetical to the American principles of freedom of speech and press.
Finally, a confession: in my haste to submit my last column by the press deadline, I mistakenly said that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent. Only 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia; all 19, however, were of Middle Eastern descent. I made a mistake. When that happens, I will be the first one to confess to and correct the error.
